From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general Subject: Re: Emacs Bazaar repository Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:40:24 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87skyvse7k.fsf@xmission.com> <86ejae96t4.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205498440 23948 80.91.229.12 (14 Mar 2008 12:40:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:40:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: schwab@suse.de, bazaar@lists.canonical.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Matthieu Moy Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 14 13:41:08 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Ja9Dg-0007JS-33 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:41:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ja9D6-0000cz-Pe for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:40:32 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ja9D2-0000Z1-5V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:40:28 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ja9Cz-0000S9-LD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:40:27 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ja9Cz-0000Rw-HZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:40:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout3.012.net.il ([84.95.2.7]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ja9Cv-0002DX-80; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:40:21 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([80.230.199.17]) by i_mtaout3.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0JXQ004K015RMHR2@i_mtaout3.012.net.il>; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:53:52 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9.1 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:92536 gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general:38556 Archived-At: > From: Matthieu Moy > Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:58:13 +0100 > Cc: Andreas Schwab , emacs-devel@gnu.org, > bazaar@lists.canonical.com > > > Andreas Schwab writes: > > > >> My first impression is that bzr is slow, so slow that it is completely > >> unusable. How can it come that a simple bzr log takes more than a > >> minute to even start? Even cvs log is instantaneous in comparison, > >> although it has to request the log from the server. > [...] > As opposed to that, bzr has to get a global view of history at least > to get the revision numbers (there was some plans caching this > information, I don't know what's the status). > > That said, the time for bzr log to start should clearly not be _that_ > long. Incidentally, why are we concentrating on "bzr log"? is that a frequent operation? With CVS, I find myself doing "cvs log" only once in a few months, when I'm looking for a change corresponding to some ChangeLog entry. Aren't "push" and "pull" much more important, as far as speed is concerned, for everyday work? Also the equivalent of "cvs diff", I think. Those are the ops I use much more frequently than "log" and "annotate".